Differences in the Gospels III

In several previous posts (here, here, and here) I addressed the problem of differences in the Gospels, pointing out that what are often taken for contradictions are really just examples of 21st century Westerners trying to impose unrealistic and modern standards of historical reporting on ancient Easterners. I demonstrated this by pointing to examples in which two different passages within the same book report different information. No one thinks of these as being contradictions because they come from the same author, and appear in the same literary document.

I found another example of this, but not in the Gospels this time. This one appears in Acts. Luke’s account of Jesus’ words to Paul on the Damascus road reads as follows: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? … I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (Acts 9:5b-6, ESV)

“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. … I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles-to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (ESV)

Not only is Acts 22 much fuller in its account of what Jesus said to Paul, but there is little overlap between them as it pertains to Jesus’ instructions. In Acts 9 Jesus instructs Paul to go to Damascus and wait to be told what to do. In Acts 22 Jesus does not tell Paul to go to Damascus, but instead, instructs him in his mission on the spot! If these two accounts appeared in two different books, critics would claim a contradiction. But because they appear in the same literary work, no such charge is made.

Of course, a reasonable harmony can be made for the two accounts. Acts 9 appears to be a summary of the much longer conversation, rather than a transcript of the actual words Jesus said (at least for His instructions; not His introduction and self-revelation). Acts 22 is probably closer to an actual transcript of what was said to Paul.

The fact that Jesus discloses to Paul His purpose for his life there on the road does not contradict what Luke reports in chapter 9. No specific instructions were given regarding what he should do next to fulfill that purpose. Furthermore, in the context of Acts 9, it seems what Paul was “to do” in Damascus was receive salvation. That is why the Lord spoke to Ananias in a vision to go pray for Paul to regain his sight and be filled with the Spirit (9:10-19).

Advertisements

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Related

5 Responses to “Differences in the Gospels III”

One point. The fact that contradictory accounts are contained within the same book doesn’t mean that they are by the same author. Just as with the OT and the documentary hypothesis, it is believed that the NT books have been altered. The gospels in particular are thought to have been changed to incorporate teachings in other gospels, the lost Q document, etc.

Are there any scholars making these kinds of suggestions for other works of antiquity? It seems to me the skepticism meter is turned up really high when it comes to the Bible. I don’t know of anyone suggesting that Plato’s Republic was not written by Plato, but a redactor.

Are you aware of any NT scholar who thinks any of the NT books, let alone Acts, was written by multiple authors? I know of many who think some of the books are pseudopigraphal, but none who think they did not start out as whole literary documents. This is excepting, of course, form criticism, but to my knowledge most of the form critical assumptions have been undermined, and the focus of form criticism was the Gospels (not Acts or the epistles).

Even if a redactor compiled the material in Acts into the book we now know, why should we think he was so stupid as to not recognize that he was putting together contradictory material (even though it is clearly not contradictory). Surely he would harmonize the independent traditions when stringing them together.

I think a major reason that other works of antiquity don’t have the same questions raised is that they don’t raise those questions on their face. Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis was discovered accidentally, when people began to notice different names used for God and different characteristics of God in parallel Bible stories. The people who noticed it were devout Christians.

Perhaps the most glaring example is the flood narrative. It’s presented as a single narrative, but if you pull out the parts that use different wording for God you can assemble two complete, separate versions of the flood account. You simply cannot do that with any other work, new or old. The combined (redacted) version in the Bible is repetitious and contradictory, but if you pull the versions apart you get two complete versions with two distinctly different gods.

On the subject of other works of antiquity, you say that there were different standards as to history and truth back then. Do you have examples of any secular works from that era in which easterners apply telescoping and the others techniques you’ve described?

The JEDP theory is not one I have given too much study to, but I have read some of those who have, and it seems to be pretty shaky to me.

No, I don’t have examples because that is not my area of study. I am merely echoing what I have read other historians say concerning ancient literature and historiography. Are you aware of evidence to the contrary?